jerryskids

And resides under him. Look, two laugh emojis, yahtzee$#@!

How does this increase Trump's power? I suspect you are saying that he is trying to unilaterally eliminate a cabinet organization (he can't, BTW) which was established by Congress, and if successful, would set a precedent where he could just, I dunno, eliminate everything and become dictator? That's squissy-level stuff there, but I'm trying to figure out your angle.

The Department of Education is a cabinet-level agency which falls under the POTUS. To eliminate it is to reduce the size and scope of POTUS control. Not sure what you're asking.

Yes, I understand this. I already said it. His effort to majorly cut funding, reduce headcount, and eliminate entire departments like Education reduce his power. The end effect of his attempted coup on the ICA restrictions is to further continue the efforts I listed, which further reduces his power. Do you understand these?

How does cutting funding for LGBTQ operas overseas increase his power?

You said everything he is doing. I pointed out the majority of things are in fact the opposite. You claim hyperbole and ignore my points. You're right, one of us is struggling on this. Carry on.

I'll just keep copying and pasting it until you acknowledge it: This ICA activity would increase his powers, but there is that little problem of his effort to majorly cut funding, reduce headcount, and eliminate entire departments like Education that more than offset it. And realize that the ICA "increase in powers" is in the context of cutting, not adding, which would have the end effect of reducing the Executive Branch power.

Hyperbole? Nice diving fail. This ICA activity would increase his powers, but there is that little problem of his effort to majorly cut funding, reduce headcount, and eliminate entire departments like Education that more than offset it. And realize that the ICA "increase in powers" is in the context of cutting, not adding, which would have the end effect of reducing the Executive Branch power. HTH

I asked yesterday and don't recall a response. Is an effort to majorly cut funding, reduce headcount, and eliminate entire departments like Education consistent with accumulating executive power?

Once again, it's in the articles you linked. Implied, not overtly stated, but it says nothing about consolidating exec power. If that were the case, he'd just go the current route.

Embarrassment? You have a pretty low bar for that. But we knew that. Looks like Trump is questioning the lack of impoundment powers for POTUS. If he fails at that, he'll revert to the deferral process laid out by the ICA, so he'll get the deferrals anyway. Speculation is that he might be concerned that Congress may have too many deep staters tied to the USAID grift to approve all of the permanent cuts he'll propose. Makes sense. Thanks for taking time from your busy corporate executive schedule to research this for me.

I dunno, I'm not there. Do you know he didn't? If I can read that, then I'm sure someone in the WH can. It would be kinda dumb for the admin not to do it.

Once again I'm left to believe you just got these from some MSDNC source and didn't bother to read them. From your second link: So, as I've been saying and you and The Girlfriend ignored, he has the power to temporarily pause spending through the current fiscal year. So, unless his 90 day pause crosses a government fiscal year, it appears to be legal. Thanks for clearing that up!

Very interesting, is it your own theory?

But there are no POC in Scottsdale.

With what part?

I want to add that whatever ratard from the Right side of the aisle pulled his hand out of his bagina long enough to report MDC the week before his team played in the SB, and limit his posting here during such an important time: I hope drowns in a puddle of AIDS.

I considered guys like Kim and Henley, good value here. Hell, I feel like I betrayed Kim, since he did me solid at Pebble.

Again, your model is the previous method: a committee to form a committee to form subcommittees to spend millions of dollars and months of time to generate a report that would never amount to any actual actions. I'm interested to see how this approach works on a titanic organization like the government. Unfortunately, some good causes suffer along the way, hopefully temporarily. As I heard one person say, if you spend $40B, you are likely to accidentally stumble into providing some good, no matter how big of a boondoggle it is.

Seafoam thinks everyone is a Rusty alias. Just ignore him. Also welcome back.

Jeez, what a boondoggle: Parsing through the bolded: - "Billionaire," because this impartial newspaper needs to continue the MSDNC message that Musk is an evil rich person out to steal all your data and destroy all your sorghum. - "Agricultural surpluses," which implies we sell sorghum but sometimes have extra. - Oops, there is no domestic or foreign market for it. It's only market is to be subsidized through USAID laundered money. Now, you can argue that there is a strategic reason for us to keep farmers going, so that we aren't dependent on foreign countries for our food supply. And that's a valid discussion. But let's at least acknowledge what it is, and maybe discuss if such subsidies should be laundered through an international aid money laundering agency.

Patrick CantPlay Taylor Pendrith @dain11279

OK, if a random woman told you that, I'd say that's acceptable.

I'm struggling to think of where this wouldn't be at least a little creepy. Maybe if the guy and the woman and her husband are all friends, and she tells the guy she made brisket for her husband's poker night or something, you could pull that line off. Basically I think you'd need to be good friends, and it would have to be the right situation.

This draft is slower than the water out of an LA fire hydrant.